Over in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, Commissioner Lyndon B. Johnson (yes, that’s his name; I wonder about that middle initial stands for) has proposed RESOLUTION NO. 13 OF 2020. The intent of the resolution is to beg the state to infringe on the human rights of innocent people.
Support legislation which strengthens the Louisiana Gun Laws by incorporating mandatory requirements for owning and carrying a firearm as well as legislation making it illegal to possess and use assault weapons (full automatic and semiautomatic with magazines/clips over 20 rounds,) except for the active military or law enforcement while on duty.
That language is a hoot. Regardless of the intent, the first part parses out as mandating owning and carrying a firearm. Johnson should have to learned to diagram sentences in English class.
The second, “assault weapon” ban, part is just plain idiotic: “full automatic and semiautomatic with magazines/clips over 20 rounds”.
As phrased, your firearm — full- or semi-auto — would only be an “assault weapon” while you have a 20+ round magazine in it.
That’s funny. I could get behind that resolution, if only to embarrass the parish idiot.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
“Amended” version, because the bill includes some troubling things like a ban on “high capacity” magazines (10+) and outlawing private sales at gun shows. But I want the ban — total, not just “assault weapons;” no grandfathering — to pass as written. It’s all in the definition of “automatic and semi-automatic guns.”
As used in this part, the term:
(1) ‘Automatic or semi-automatic gun’ means any weapon which shoots or is designed to shoot:
(A) Automatically, more than six shots, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger; or
(B) Without any action needed to fire consecutive shots, other than having ammunition loaded in such weapon’s feeding device.
You see it, don’t you? Maybe not: “Automatically, more than six shots” or “Without any action”
So this letter went to Georgia Senator William Ligon, 3rd District:
Sen. Ligon,
I’m one of your constituents in St Marys, and a writer for The Zelman Partisans and The Truth About Guns. I cover firearms policy and law.
Sen Donzella James has filed SB 281 (Dangerous Instrumentalities and Practices; possession of automatic and semi-automatic guns; prohibit), I hope you will consider the following actions and encourage your fellow legislators to go along.
1. Amend to strike the ban on “high” capacity magazines (more than ten rounds) and private sales at gun shows.
2. Vote to pass the remaining ban on “possession of automatic and semi-automatic guns.”
As written, Sen. James has succeeded in “banning” semi-autos without actually banning anything, except possibly malfunctioning firearms. Passing this would be hilarious. If you aren’t quite sure why, this column explains.
If you live in Georgia, you may want to contact your own senator.
For those concerned about Georgians losing machine guns, worry not. The bill leaves intact existing language in the law which had already banned machine guns unless they’re registered under the NFA.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
I hear it quite often, “I’m not antisemitic, I’m anti-Zionist, I’m anti-Israel. Well, let’s just call that what it is, shall we? Horse-schiff. It is antisemitic.
There is one tiny Jewish nation, there are around 50 muslim countries not counting Germanistan, Francistan and Englandistan. No one seems to have a problem with this. Certainly the UN doesn’t. They should. When the UN replaced the League of Nations it agreed to take on all the League of Nations mandates and agreements. See, they were liars even back then. From Barry Shaw’s The View from Israel
The Europeans take no account of the fact that, prior to 1948, the so-called West Bank was Israel in territory that included Judea & Samaria, the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea down to Eilat.
They take no account that this was prescribed by the League of Nations (the forerunners of the United Nations) in 1922 in which they affirmed the 1920 decision of the Supreme Court of the League of Nations that “recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”
We need to question the European drift from the requirement to “secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home” to a policy that is blatantly anti-Semitic.
….
As for “Illegal occupation,” it is not illegal for a nation to defend itself. Nor is it illegal for such a nation to hold onto territory seized in a defensive war against a congenital aggressor as Israel was against Jordan, both in 1948 and in 1967, when it twice invaded Israel in order to annihilate the Jewish state and to banish its Jewish population.
Evidence of this is seen in Jordan’s brutal occupation of Jerusalem in which they destroyed all the ancient synagogues and physically expelled all the remaining Jews, those they hadn’t killed, from the Old City of Jerusalem. That was when Jordan occupied Judea & Samaria and the Jordan Valley, which became known as The West Bank (of Jordan) between 1948 and 1967.
Nobody cried about “illegally occupying Palestinian land” during that period. The Europeans had nothing to say about calling on the Jordanians to withdraw from occupied Israeli land. They were silent when Jordan joined with other Arab armies to “drive the Jews into the sea,” from their vantage positions on the high ground overlooking the narrow coastal plain of what was left of Israel since their initial conquest of Israeli territory.
The Europeans silently expected the annihilation of the Jewish State. They did nothing. They watched and waited. Many were disappointed by the miraculous victory of a determined people’s army against the British trained and equipped Jordanian army who were driven back across the Jordan River as Israeli soldiers liberated Jerusalem and drove the Syrians off the Golan Heights.
They did nothing, they watched and they waited. Yep, just like the Holocaust. Why does this matter? In case you’re unaware, in December the Temple Mount, Beit HaMikdash is set to be renamed by the UN. In a final betray by barak hussein obama (may his name be erased) in UN resolution 2334 barry tried to erase Jews living in Judea and Samaria, they were an obstacle to peace. The peace of the UN and barak hussein obama will only be achieved when the Jews living in Israel, all of Israel are dead and gone. There is a good interview with Barry on the Tamar Yonah Show.
The UN gave its preliminary approval to a resolution that referred to the Temple Mount solely by its Muslim name of Haram al-Sharif.
The resolution passed at the UN’s Fourth Committee in New York 154-8, with 14 abstentions and 17 absences. It was one of eight pro-Palestinian resolutions approved on Friday, out of a slate of more than 15 such texts the committee is expected to approve. The UN General Assembly will take a final vote on the texts in December.
According to Barry Shaw this is not so much muslim countries pushing this, it’s western democracies. Not antisemitic? Horse-schiff, it is. While the Jordanian Wafkos control the Temple Mount, located in Israel, they limit access Jews and Christians have to go to pray there. In fact, Jews and Christians aren’t allowed to pray there. Only muslims, at their mollusk. Once a mollusk is planted, to muslims that area is now under muslim control. Thanks so much Moshe Dayan.
That makes Israel’s decision to allow muslims to re-open the Sidna Omar mollusk in the Jewish quarter baffling and heinous. The Sidna Omar mollusk is located along the main road to the Kotel (The Western wall which is not the holiest site in Judaism). But I’m sure unlike the muslims that control the Temple Mount, these muslims will not interfere with Jews and Christians on their way there. Horse-schiff.
Some Jews just don’t seem to realize that the alligator may eat them last, but it will eat them.
I don’t know if it’s an effort to prove they are “fair” towards the arabs or they are “woke”, but either way lunacy seems to weigh heavily on some of their statements and actions. Some may just be indoctrination. It is moral equivalence. Some I think is influenced by rejection of G-d, Torah and lust for power.
Bernie Sanders who campaigns with known anti-semite Linda Sarsour by this side? He is more communist that Jew I think. Communism is his religion.
Sanders curried favor by suggesting that Israel did not respect human rights, snapping, “I would use the leverage of $3.8 billion. It is a lot of money, and we cannot give it carte blanche to the Israeli government, or for that matter to any government at all. We have a right to demand respect for human rights and democracy.” He threatened, “My solution is, to Israel, if you want military aid you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza. I would say that some of the $3.8 billion should go right now to humanitarian aid in Gaza.”
Horse-schiff, he knows how that money will be used.
Now the students at Oberlin may just be indoctrinated, stupid or just being “woke”. But either way this is antisemitic horse-schiff.
Oberlin ignorance
I can tell them a bit of the bio of the people killed in the attack.
Notable Jewish groups such as J street, Jewish Voices for Peace (who aren’t) and If Not Now routinely attack President Trump, arguably the most pro-Jewish, pro-Israel President ever as being an antisemite. This too is horse-schiff. I also didn’t mention what those groups are notable for.
Any attacks against Jews are blamed on the President by the press, and they yammer on and on about it, despite the fact it’s not true. It’s #FakeNews horse-schiff.
Why do I say that? Because in the attack in Jersey City the media has portrayed it as shootout that started and just “happened to wind up at the Kosher Deli”. Horse-schiff.
Authorities are still investigating and have not indicated a motive for the attack. Before the mayor’s tweets today, investigators had said the store was chosen at random and was not indicative of a hate crime.
“Why did they say that when it is clearly untrue?” a community activity asked, speaking on condition of anonymity. “And why were there rumors of a drug bust gone bad and a homicide investigation when that was clearly not the case?”
But Mayor Steve Fulop said surveillance video of the attackers made it clear they targeted the kosher market, and he pronounced the bloodshed a hate crime against Jews, as did New York’s mayor and governor.
So, it’s not so much about dead Jews because the media is glossing over the deli was the target. And it can’t be about President Trump and his white supremacists because as it turns out the killers were black and part of a group called Black Hebrew Israelites.
Also, investigators believe the two dead attackers — who were thought to be a couple — identified themselves in the past as Black Hebrew Israelites, a movement whose members have been known to rail against whites and Jews, according to a law enforcement official who was briefed on the matter but was not authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
A pipe bomb seems to have been found in the rented van driven by the Buckets O’Chum.
Grewal said that within seconds of pulling up to the market, Anderson got out with a rifle and immediately began shooting, and Graham followed him into the store. He would not say whether Graham had a weapon.
A pipe bomb was found in the van, FBI agent Gregory Ehrie said.
Jersey City’s mayor said it was clear that the killers deliberately made their way toward the kosher market, passing many other possible targets along the way, and calmly and promptly opened fire.
I’m adding this video posted by Dov Hikind in because it is just so beyond belief. I heard about it from Ben Shapiro, and he said no media outlets are covering it. You need to see it. You really do.
“If they got shot dead, that was great”.
SHOCKING VIDEO: As Jewish bodies were still laying in cold blood after being murdered by terrorists in Jersey City, a rep of @AmericansAA captured spontaneous antisemitic tirades blaming Jews for their own murder & ppl cheering it on!
Andrea Chamblee wants her some gun control, and she ‘s mad that State Sen. Bobby Zirkin “slow-walked” a universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence bill. But the funny part is why she wanted that passed.
…the bill that would make it illegal for already disqualified people to obtain rifles and shotguns at gun shows and other transfers. (emphasis added)
She thinks it’s legal for prohibited persons (“disqualified people”) to obtain rifles and shotguns.
So I tweeted to her that it’s been unlawful for prohibited persons to obtain firearms for decades Try to keep up. And that’s where it started getting funny.
From the NRA website:
“Maryland does NOT regulate the sale of rifles or shotguns and no permit is required to purchase a rifle or shotgun that is not an “assault weapon.” Nov 12, 2014
Keep up. Dumazz? Liar? Both!
Yes, in a discussion of prohibited persons, she’s citing the VNRA on Maryland state laws on long gun regulation. I cited 18 U.S. Code § 922(g), Gun Control Act of 1968. And laughed at her carefully considered and mature use of language.
Her response:
So the NRA webpage is lying? Whine to Putin.
Ok, Boomer?
-face palm- She still doesn’t grasp that she’s looking at the wrong reference. And I’ve got no clue what Putin has to do with this. Maybe she thinks 18 U.S. Code § 922 is a Russian law. Does that “§” look Cyrillic to you?
The “OK, Boomer” is great. That’s the first time anyone has pulled that on me. And this time seems a little… odd.
Unless she’s led a particularly hard life, I’d say she could easily be older than I. Somehow, I thought I’d first hear it from a Millennial or whatever they’re tagging younger folks as.
If Andrea wants to be a gun control activist, she really should learn something about gun control. I referred her to our Gun Culture Primer.
I needed those laughs. GunPeople controlling victim disarmers aren’t usually so entertaining in their ignorance.
UPDATE: Holy Moley. Andrea Chamblee thinks MD Crim Law Code § 5-622(b) & 18 U.S. Code § 922(g) are a Russian conspiracy pushed by Putin, and that it’s actually lawful to sell rifles & shotguns to prohibited persons.
Is that really her, and she’s that fugbuck nuts? Or has someone hacked her Twitter account?
You know it’s legal to sell it to him. You’re just spreading Russian propaganda on behalf of Putin. Putin has figured out how to murder Americans. He just has other Americans do it. Other Americans who spread hate and conspiracy theories like you
If that’s Chamblee, and not some prankster trying to make her look bad, she’s in need of some serious professional help.
UPDATE 2: I’m heartbroken. </sarc>
I guess that was the real Chamblee. Hopefully someone will get her some help.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Lately, I’ve seen gunpeople controllers repeating a factoid about crime guns, traces, and the need to crack down on evil licensed dealers: 1% of dealers are responsible for 57% of all crime guns.
Revoking licenses for gun dealers who break the rules. Only 1% of gun dealers are responsible for 57% of guns used in crimes. My Administration will direct the ATF to prioritize oversight of dealers with serial compliance violations — and then use its authority to revoke the license of dealers who repeatedly violate the rules.
And that’s a real statistic, straight from the ATF.
Just 1.2 percent of dealers — 1,020 of the approximately 83,200 licensed retail dealers and pawnbrokers — accounted for over 57 percent of the crime guns traced to current dealers in 1998. And just over 450 licensed dealers in 1998 had 10 or more crime guns with a time-to-crime of three years or less traced to them. ATF is now targeting enforcement and inspection resources at these dealers, as well as making crime gun trace analysis available to criminal investigators.
Using data from 21 years ago. And do note the bold-face portion, where they explained –19 years ago — that they were already going after those dealers, and expanded their process to make it easier for investigators to catch new potential troublemakers.
Problem solved. Warren is — as happens so often with these victim disarmers — behind the times, demanding what already is.
I did wonder if there’s an updated version of that statistic. Since the ATF is addressing the issue, it seemed like they might mention the percentage of “bad” dealers occasionally. Sadly, that statistic is not mentioned in the ATF’s annual “Firearms Trace Data” report
The 2000 report is the last time I can see that the ATF published the statistic. Since they working on the problem, I suspect any real rogue FFLs were shut down, and there simply aren’t scary enough numbers for further demonization. Hence, Warren using 21 year old data.
So the next time you see that just tell the person:
“I beg your pardon, but that stat is from a nineteen year-old report, using data from 1998. The ATF began taking action against those dealers back then. It hardly seems likely they’re still at it. Try to keep up.”
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
I’ll just drop this here with one comment, to follow.
ABC News Airs U.S. Gun Range Video, Calling It a Syrian War Zone — Twice
The footage, which ABC News purported was of an attack on the border town of Tal Abyad, was aired Sunday on World News Tonight and Good Morning America on Monday morning. However, a comparison by Gizmodo shows the video was captured at Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky back in 2017.
Oh. My.
I would like Swalwell, Biden, O’Rourke, and Harris to note that what US gun owners consider play time is what a major news outlet can mistake for a major military offensive by the Forces of a NATO nation. Tell us again how resisting a tyrannical government is futile.
OK. Two comments: That’s funny.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
I wish Ammoland land would stop giving presumed-Bloomberg-mole Harold Hutchison virtual ink, but I suppose his garbage does drive traffic as outraged pro-rights people try to counter his appeasement cries.
The Zelman Partisans will not join him: No compromise. No surrender.
How Second Amendment Commissars Make it Easy for Bloomberg to Take Our Rights
Second Amendment supporters face one big difficulty when trying to defend their rights. It comes from someone who shares the same objectives, but who seems to think “no compromise” means not giving an inch – even rhetorically, when a different technique might be better. They act as self-appointed commissars, and much of their time and energy is spent on denouncing Second Amendment supporters for being insufficiently pro-Second Amendment.
You’re calling us Soviet commissars, you little [expurgated]? Do you have the slightest idea how [expurgated] offensive that is? Or how [expurgated] insane it is to consider someone supporting human/civil rights to be the same as a rights-violating Thought Police boss for the authoritarian state?
TZP has offered Hutchison the opportunity to comment here before. We’ll do it again, with this challenge:
Name one “compromise” that gave something to the pro-human/civil rights side.
Should he answer, I expect he’ll cite FOPA, in which we gave up machineguns (and bump-fire stocks, and soon semi-autos due to yet another “compromise” by his beloved Vichy NRA), and received a few promises that the evil SOBs would stop a short list of infringements… which they immediately ignored.
Safe passage? Ask the folks NY and NJ are still busting. Ask me why I had to disassemble my firearms, zip tie the individual parts, lock them in separate cases, and chain the cases down, just to feel reasonably safe from the police when I drove through Massachusetts.
No firearms databasing? Ask FFLs who watch the ATF copy 4473s for mass scanning? The ATF brags on that one.
Victim-disarmers compromising with each other (bans with grandfathering, for example) aren’t a compromise with us either.
Come on, Harold. Name the compromise. Email us, and we’ll update this post. Or leave a comment below.
We’re waiting.
-crickets-
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
I heard an interesting interview on the Mark Levin show a couple weeks ago on my way home from class. The interview involved Dr. Bandy X Lee.
Bandy Xenobia Lee (born 1970) is an American psychiatrist with Yale University and a specialist in violence prevention programs in prisons and in the community who initiated reforms at New York’s Rikers Island prison. Her scholarly work includes the writing of a comprehensive textbook on violence. In 2017 she organized a conference on the mental health of Donald Trump at Yale and was the editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, a book of essays that has contributed to the debate about Trump’s mental stability and within the psychiatric profession in the United States about the interpretation of the Goldwater rule.
Judith Lewis Herman (born 1942) is an American psychiatrist, researcher, teacher, and author who has focused on the understanding and treatment of incest and traumatic stress.
Herman is Professor of clinical psychiatry at Harvard University Medical School and Director of Training at the Victims of Violence Program in the Department of Psychiatry at the Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a founding member of the Women’s Mental Health Collective.
She was the recipient of the 1996 Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies and the 2000 Woman in Science Award from the American Medical Women’s Association. In 2003 she was named a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
How distinguished! But it seems these two distinguished doctors are afraid. There is a huge problem. They along with 2535 or 36 of their fellow psychiatrists realized the imminent danger our country is facing because we elected a seriously unstable Republican as President.
So Mark’s interview begins with asking Bandy about her political leanings. Is she a Demoncrat? She denies she is, though she did vote for Hillary. Is she a liberal? Yes, and a conservative. Has she ever voted for a Republican? Yes. Who? She’d rather not say. Then it really starts to get interesting. In what ways is she a conservative? She is a devout Christian, she believes in the founding principles of this nation, she’s a great patriot if you will, says she. By later in the interview I’m thinking she had to be a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church. Mark inquires if she believes in private property rights. Well, to an extent, she feels private property rights have gone too far. WTHeck? Does she believe in limited federal government? This made her nervous. Why was he asking her such things? She declares first and foremost she is a medical professional! She is not a very political person! She declares she has no conflicts of interest. Do you believe all the Bill of Rights? Ummmmm. Do you believe in the Second Amendment?
“Ummmmm…..I actually don’t really know the exact ummmm, meanings of the Bill of Rights. What I studied was enlightenment literature.”
So she and 36 other “mental health experts” have written this book. As many as thirty-six out of the, as she admits, hundreds of thousands of other mental health experts in this country, have written a book on the dangerous mind of President Trump.
Where did she get her information? Had she ever met the President? No. Had she ever spoken to the President? No. Did she watch TV, read newspapers, listen to the radio? No, she did a “fairly intimate analysis of him due to the information that was on him in the Mueller Report.” She said, well, its observations from outside the President’s head. As Mark points out, her book was written before the Mueller report came out. She says the alarm for herself started in early 2016. She was triggered by the interaction between the Presidential candidate DJT and his rally attendees. She said this is real time interaction, and response in real time, as recorded of course. She was disturbed by the things the Candidate said and that people were applauding and cheering. Mark points out she did no scientific diagnosis, as that’s not possible from a distance. She counters that is not true, she brought her scientific knowledge and psychiatric training as well as her experience in public health. So she was quite aware of what these signs represented, and they have born out to be true with time. A danger she says. That’s why it’s ok she wrote this book without a diagnosis. Mark points out you can’t have a diagnosis from afar. She says “that’s not true either”. With certain conditions, a diagnosis is more accurate from a distance, without a personal interview. And this is mainstream thought. Today diagnosis is based on no interaction, just on observing the person. But she insists she never diagnosed, she is only interested in the public health effects of DJT. Then she insists she can’t diagnose from afar. And she doesn’t want to, where upon Mark tells her the book is filled with speculation on such things. Mark asks if she analyzed Hillary Clinton? She insists dangerousness is about the situation, not the person. Huh? Ok, is she dangerous?
“Hillary Clinton never raised alarms for me”.
I guess she could do a internet search on the Clinton body count. She insists it’s not about political party, it’s about standards. Mark reiterates he’s read her book. On what page are the standards listed? They aren’t. He further points out, she only watched TV. She never actually went to any of his rallies, never talked to any of his people, never talked to any of his supporters.
Why does this outrage me so? Red Flag laws. Not only can a person accuse you without evidence it appears the medical profession, or at least the mental health profession (some of whom wanted nothing to do with Bandy or this book) are willing to make judgments affecting your property, your rights and your life based on some undocumented, unspecified standards. Will these be the same “professionals” helping to write legislation in an advisory capacity? Now I understand why Professor Quack thinks personal property rights have gone too far. Not that she can tell you about the Bill of Rights.
If you want to hear the whole interview, it’s available here
If you want the whole show, and the part about “medicare for all” is pretty darn interesting, as is the “wealth tax”, you can get that here.
The news today is full of the latest poll alleging massive support for an “assault weapon” ban, universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks, and more human/civil rights violations. The numbers claimed were so outrageous I was sure it would prove to be another Quinnipiac poll.
But not this this time; it was conducted by Langer Research Associates, an outfit of whom I’ve never heard before.
I had some time to kill, so I took a look at the poll data. This was a “nationwide” telephone survey of 1,003 people, supposedly randomly dialed. There is no further information on methodology. But given the questions they asked, no methodology was going to save them.
16. Would you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?
They failed to define “assault weapon,” a term with different meanings in a few jurisdictions and none in most. Therefore the question has zero meaning, or a wildly variable meaning in the mind of each individual respondent.
Did they mean an “assault weapon” as defined by the 1994 federal law? A Massachusetts assault weapon whose definition was based on the ’94 federal law until it was bureaucratically expanded? The NY definition which encompasses both more and less? The CA definition which covers even more, while missing things covered by the others? Respondents were left to their own imagination.
17. Would you support or oppose [ITEM]?
a. requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers, including private sales and gun shows
All retail sales require background checks already. It’s already unlawful to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. The question should mention costs, too. It should note that nearly all firearms used in crimes are obtained unlawfully, bypassing any required checks.
b. a nationwide ban on high capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets
“Clips” are devices used to load magazines, and hold cartridges, not just bullets. The most common clips already hold 10 or fewer cartridges.
c. a law allowing the police to take guns away from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others
Such laws already exist. Their summary refers to “red flag” laws, so for the question to have meaning, they must specify that the order would be ex parte and the subject would not have the chance to speak in his defense and that the accuser need provide no evidence (if there were evidence, a regular arrest warrant could be issued).
d. a mandatory buy back program in which the federal government would require assault weapon owners to turn in those weapons in exchange for payment
Again, “assault weapon” must be defined, and the payment specified. For instance, New Zealand’s new ban specifies a maximum payment below market value, which may be part of why compliance is running below 10% (and dropping with each “buyback” event).
18. Who do you trust more to handle gun laws in this country – (Trump) or (the Democrats in Congress)?
That question is so biased that, if I had been polled, I would have hung up on the idiots. It presupposes that more gun laws are desirable. It frames the debate as an individual vs. a Dem majority. (Incidentally, Trump has implemented more new firearm restrictions in this year, than the Democrats have managed in the past twelve years.)
19. How confident are you that [ITEM] would reduce mass shootings in this country – very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?
You failed to define “mass shooting.” The GVA definition, which includes people not shot? The CRS/FBI definition which excludes gangbangers shooting it out over turf and revenge? Meaningless question.
21. Do you or does anyone in your house own a gun, or not?
I’ve always found that question amusing. Imagine answering your own phone one day and hearing, “Hi! I’m a stranger randomly dialing numbers, so I don’t really know where you live. Will you tell me if you have valuable merchandise that’s easily stolen?”
It gets even better when you toss that question in with the suggestion of confiscation.
All in all, the clowns didn’t find “support” for anything specific. They conducted a verbal Rorschach test of “support” for whatever was in the mind of each individual. They might as well have asked, “Do you support or oppose color?” And left it to each person to guess if they meant color vs. B&W imagery, people of color, or red vs. blue.
I’d like to see more detail on the methodology. Did they ask the questions of whomever answered the phone, or ask for youngest likely voter? Someone else? What regions did they poll, and how did they weight responses? It doesn’t much matter, given the questions, but I’d like to further ridicule them.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
